The Tables Have Turned

Before the first debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry, everyone assumed that issues of foreign policy would be Bush's strong points -- since those issues are largely constituted of military matters, a Republican strong point, and are essentially the center of George Bush's campaign for reelection -- while John Kerry would be able to stand out on domestic issues such as health care and stem cell research. But, right off the bat in the first debate, Kerry masterfully put Bush on the defensive on foreign policy issues using his own record against him -- exactly what everyone knew he would have to do to win. The result was a squinting, smirking, and ultimately frustrated and exasperated George Bush desperately trying to defend himself and his decisions. Kerry came away from that debate with a clear win, and over the next few days saw a much needed surge in polls. However, in winning that first debate, Kerry showed George Bush how to win the remaining two.

One need look no further than this past Friday's second presidential debate for proof. Now, I am not by any means saying George Bush won that debate, because he did not; it may have been a tie, but it was certainly not a Bush win. But, imagine the same debate without the entire first half, which consisted of foreign policy questions. That debate, could very possibly have been a Bush win, because throughout the domestic policy section of the debate, Bush made certain to give Kerry a taste of his own medicine, throwing his senate record right back down his throat -- albeit more often than not in a rather misleading fashion. We then saw Kerry put on the defensive, although Kerry functioned much better in that position that Bush did. Fortunately, Friday's debate did include foreign policy questions that elicited the occasional shaky -- and often high decibel, or Howard Dean-esque -- response from Bush. But, this Wednesday's debate will involve no such questions. It will in effect, be the second half of Friday's debate blown up to the size of a full on, hour and a half presidential debate. If I were Kerry, or a Kerry advisory, that fact alone would worry me.

Kerry clearly has the ability to knock Bush out of the water when it comes to domestic policy issues. Polls already show a majority of voters siding with him on issues such as health care, education and stem cell research, but his answers to questions involving domestic issues on Friday night were often drawn out, vague and confusing. If he wants to even come close to doing to Bush on Wednesday what he did to him two weeks ago in their first meeting, he will have to develop some clear cut, straight forward, simple answers. At one point during Friday's debate, Kerry called an issue "very complex." Bush then shot back that it was not complex at all. It was, on the contrary, "simple." Kerry was right. But I would be willing to bet that the majority of voters want the issues, and the candidates stances on the issues, no matter how complex they actually are, explained to them in as simple a manner as possible. This is what Kerry will have to do in this weeks final debate. If he can present his domestic policy plans simply and elegantly, he may once again put Bush in a tight spot -- because voters will then have a clearer understanding of why Kerry's plans are better, and more effective than Bush's. If he fails to do this, Bush will have a much easier time making the debate about a contorted, twisted view of Kerry's twenty year senate career, rather than his four year presidential career, and what will happen over the course of next four years. That is what this debate should be about. Kerry succeeded in making it the focus of the first debate. He will have to do it again on Wednesday.